Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 2204 2001 SLD 2204 2001 PLC 410
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. KAR 266 of 1999, decision dated: 4-12-2000.
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SINDH CLUB through Secretary

VS

SOHAIL AHMED and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 2(xxviii) & 25 A West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i) "Workman" Employee claimed .to be a permanent workman and employer in his written reply had admitted the claim of the employee Mere admission of employee in his cross examination that two assistants and two helpers worked under him, could not exclude him from the definition of "workman" particularly when no further clarification as to the job assigned to the said assistants/helpers was forthcoming. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S.25 A West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15(3) Dismissal from service Employee elected as General Secretary of the Trade Union, was dismissed from service on allegation that on the day when he was elected, in defiance of order of employer the meeting of the General Board of the Union was held during working hours which disturbed the peace and tranquility of members of employers' club and work of club was seriously affected -Validity Employee was not responsible for convening the meeting in question as it was, not held on the motion of employee Former General Secretary of the Union and other office bearers of the Union were responsible for the meeting but no action had been taken against them Allegation against employee having not been proved, he could not be dismissed from service on the said allegation. (e) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) S.51 Back benefits Entitlement Employee .who was Homeopathy's Doctor was running a part time clinic of Homoeopathy even prior to termination of his service Practice of Homoeopathy would not disentitle employee for back benefits as whatever he earned from his private practice, could not be interpreted as his income earned during the time he served the employer Back benefits could not be denied to the employee in circumstances. Muhammad Ali Khan for Appellant AND M..A.K. Azmati for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th November, 2000. DECISION This appeal arose from the order, dated 27 9 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No.V, whereby the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492